ly than other stores do. the issue here, i would be supportive and we could put some things in place. one of the things i would want is however we could put something in about the local hiring, whether -- to meet the goals of the 100% local hiring. the condition about beer and wine sales only. that was their intent anyway. but i think if we put that in there, beer and wine would be the only thing they could sell, that would help. most kids are not trying to steal wine other grocery store. if that is the case, the issue around self check out, if they are allowing people to come in

and steal all call, that is a quick way to be out of -- steel alcohol, that is a quick way to be out of business. maybe there is a line that is not self check out. maybe we can create some protection around that issue. the other issue i have heard is wic, and we can make that as a condition of approval when they apply when it is available and offer it in -- and any of your sort of program that allows assistance for people to eat. i think those are the key things. the other thing i would want to add in the condition is they come back to us in a year with hiring, measures around hiring, information about alcohol in particular. and also ongoing things, the outcome with the work with mission neighborhood center on

the head start, i think that is a critical piece that has not been -- it has not been decided at this point, obviously but it is being hung out as something that will happen. it will be important to know that it did happen. i think that could be a good reason to support this. those are the things i would want to see because i think the community needs protections around those areas and we do need to have a way to have feedback in making sure that happens. i would want to make sure, we have in our conditional use that a community liaison is appointed but it would have to be someone at fresh and easy, at the store, not someone affiliated with the project generally. it would have to be someone who has control on site. commissioner sugaya: i have a question for the project

sponsor. i do not know the ins and outs of the wic program. obviously there has been some kind of moratorium in place at least twice within the last number of years which sounds like it prevents fresh and easy from even applying. we have had testimony from the public to the effect that you could apply for an exemption. could you elaborate on that a little bit? >> i can speak to that. when the announcement of the moratorium being put in place went to a fact, there was an opportunity to submit a list of locations they identified where they would apply for wic during that time. we did submit a letter to the state with a list of sites, and on that list was the bay view

store and we're currently in the application process right now. we're hoping in the next hopefully month or two months that it will be authorized there. it is not true that we did not apply for exemptions, it was not for all our stores but it was for a certain amount of stores. commissioner sugaya: thank you. it is disconcerting for a large, will run organization to come here and not know what the% of hiring is in two stores in san francisco when that has been a huge issue around this particular application. you have had a continuance. there have been opportunities to hear someone come from our president is -- a representative, and said it --

say they do not know the percentages, it does not hit me right. also, someone else may be able to answer this. in terms of alcohol sales, i assume alcohol sales are essential to your business model, is that correct? and what percent of your overall retail sales are alcohol sales, of all kinds? >> it is a necessary component above -- a necessary component, but not exclusive. it is 5%. we offer beer and wine in the majority of our stores. commissioner sugaya: thank you. a couple of questions to staff. can we control the type of checkouts in this building? >> i believe we can add a

condition. commissioner sugaya: kelly ban alcohol sales in the establishment? we went around on this before. -- can we banned alcohol sales in this establishment? we went around and around where we were told we did not have tears in -- jurisdiction. i think that is a wrong interpretation but i will ask again. if we approve this, can one condition be no alcohol sales tax -- no alcohol sales? >> i do not know. i will try to find out. commissioner sugaya: you can continue. commissioner miguel: i think commissioner sugaya's comments are well taken. any organization like this

should have their organization -- their hiring personages on the tip of their tongue and i find it extremely disconcerting to not have those in front of us when they know this is a very serious item in san francisco and on this agenda. aside from that, what i did not comment originally on, i did notice my own notes was the concept of the automatic check out in general. safeway is experimenting with it on a small-scale. it is my and standing they will continue as experimenting with this -- my understanding they will continue experimenting with this nationwide. what you hear -- half of you remember when you were forbidden

by state law to put gas in your own gas tank. it is still true in oregon or was the last time i was up there. it could not do it. and now, -- you could not do it. and now unless you have a disabled sticker, you are not allowed to have them do it, in effect. service station employees themselves. it is similar in that regard. i know what effects the number of employees, but it is something that perhaps 20 years from now to an increasing number of this. i do not know that i would go so far as to restrict all alcohol beverage sales. i don't know that is totally

unnecessary. i would not oppose it. i do not know that is totally unnecessary. as i mentioned before, condition as to wic, that they would be required, the condition they come back to us as commissioner borden mentioned in the year as we have done on other projects and report back to us is totally in order. that is all i have at the moment. commissioner migueloore: i appre the passion in which in -- commissioners engage in this discussion. i did not hear you say although i know you would agree with me, when the commission continues this particular project, we did that in order to get more substantive dialogue between the operator and the community. i believe that did not happen

because what was presented to us today, the gentleman who spoke, the neighbor, the comments of the community are more nuanced and the distance between the groups are as -- the operator has not addressed or committed to the things that were supposed to be the subject of mutual discussion. i believe that the issues described by the operator are vague and in innuendo. for me, it does not ring true. i have to be clear about that. and listening to commissioner wu, who lives in the area, at

describing there is a rich offering of things you could find at freshen gave lizzie -- fresh and easy reminds me of an experience i will share with you. i am not going to equate los angeles with the mission district. that is a far shot. at the corner of south central and east ames boulevard in los angeles there is a brand-new, wonderfully appointed fresh and easy and it sits there like a beacon. when you go inside, it is very dark. not dark but it is too bright. its presence is totally irrelevant in the neighborhood. i will worked in south central for two months to years ago. -- i worked in south central for two months two years ago. the store was void of employees. the store was void of relevant

food, not just for myself but for the majority of people who live in the area. when i proceeded to the checkout, there was not anybody even at the checkout where you normally check out but i saw the alcohol type of check out including young kids waiting outside for someone else to do it for them because you can negotiate with others to do it for you and then you run. i was while i was inspired by the example to go into this neighborhood, ultimately, i was mentally disappointed. -- majorly disappointed. it is because of that experience that convinces me i would not support what is in front of us except some of the things that is based on these two groups

coming to us and presenting to us concrete examples of that certain conditions will be met. certain controls on whether to -- what ever limited amount of alcohol that would be sold or at all, but that would be done with a checker and not some machines that can be avoided. that is basically where i stand. >> the question about alcohol sales, the commission could condition the approval on no alcohol sales. the second question regarding hiring, because of the number of other laws and practices regarding hiring practices, you could require them to meet with the hiring practices but to set a goal would not be appropriate for that commission to decide.

>> the fact that we continue the item -- continued the item so the groups could work out something, it strikes me funny that meeting was declined by the community. at least that is what i understand. the community is the one who declined the meeting as of yesterday. we did provide -- commissioner antonini: in terms of the community, someone was asking that question. the mission district is a depressed area, becoming more diverse as time goes on. the community is a lot of different people and we have seen letters of support and supportive comments from a number of people who live in the area. we have heard some who are not in support. the community -- to say the community has not worked with them is not true. there have been a lot of

meetings. some people participated, some did not. we could have meetings for months on and this would not change. this has been discussed at great length. just because not everyone here is discussing their point of view does not mean they do not have positions on this issue. certainly seen from both sides. in regards to the hiring issue, which was raised, i have a couple of thoughts. first of all in regards to 32nd and california, the representative and i may ask her to comment in a second, too, as far as the numbers were concerned, there was a goal. there was a first hiring goal at first source and that is 9 for 121, if i am not mistaken. probably what happened there is what happened when i grew up in the livermore. they had a mcdonalds and they had to come out of danville to find work.

they had to hire outside and the same is possibly true here. it is not a real wealthy is a cut but one where it might be difficult to find employees. we could ask ms. carlton or mr. badner or whoever wants to speak to this about the numbers. i heard a statement that in one -- 94124, we heard 60% 4 that is it -- that is it code alone. is that correct? >> roblin howard -- robin howard again. the bayview, 75% is from the neighborhood. the outer richmond is 63.

>commissioner antonini: ok, that is pretty high. when you are saying 75%, there is another is a code adjacent to it which of course is very close. you go on the other side of the bay shore and you are in another support -- zip code. >> that is from that particular zip code. commissioner antonini: that is impressive. thank you. i will make a motion. i think this has a lot of benefits with some conditions. first of all, the motion is the sponsor continue to work with ariba juntos or another group.

to try to meet the goal of 100% local hire. and they also report back to us in one year with the results of this hiring. number two, when the moratorium is lifted, the project sponsor accept the wic food stamp program. number three, alcoholic beverages restricted to beer and wine which is what they have rate -- which is what they have asked for. number four, alcohol checkout be through a manned station only. we have this system with the automatic checking and i saw the video and i see how the alarm goes off. there should be monitored. part of the reporting back will be how successful this is. if a bell goes off, the only way

they will be able to buy, they will not have someone help them go through the automated, but they will have to have an employee check them out. an alcoholic beverage has to be checked out by a person, the person can see that it is in fact an alcoholic item, it is not something that is being disguised, may be the same way to or it tracks the machine somehow. i think that is the only way that there -- there are ways to police this. that is basically my motion, if it is clear. did you get that, linda? anything else other commissioners would like to add to my would be interested in hearing that. -- i would be interested in hearing that. let's put that in. the store manager is the community liailiaison. the store manager on presence --

on premises. that is my motion. >> second. commissioner sugaya: this question is not relevant. mr. badner, is your client a party to the suit against the state? >> the answer is yes. >> fresh and easy is a member of the california grocers association and that is a party. >> the motion is for approval with conditions as staff has prepared them and the additional conditions that the

project sponsor is to continue work with aribe juntos in the goal to meet 100% local hire and to report back in a year on the process, once the limitations that have been imposed on the wic program are lifted that they cannot apply for the program and be full participants in that. and beer and wine, the sale of alcoholic beverages is limited to beer and wine and also the sale of alcoholic beverages must only be allowed through a manned or personed counter. and that the store manager is the community liaison. >> commissioner antonini, could

you specify -- could be more specific? commissioner antonini: let me tell you how i would like to see this done. i think you have to first of all inform your customers that if you have alcohol beverages, you have to go through a check out where someone is there all the time, at least one check out all the times that is manned. were you have to take it. if someone tries to come through this self serve -- the self serve with a bottle of wine or a six-pack, if your system is working, that should set off an alarm. there should be someone in the store who was out there near the exit watching these things go on, the same person who would be interacting with them. when that happens, they are directed by your security staff or one of -- the checkout

personnel to take the item to the check out to be checked out by an actual person. is that clear? >> that is clear. commissioner sugaya: a quick question to staff. we -- have we received any communication from supervisor campos? >> no. not since the initial continuance. >> i would like to ask the project sponsor to respond to the condition of alcohol sales by a manned, personed checkout counter. >> in manned, the person just standing there stationary? our people flowed from. >> you may have to do this

differently than you do in other stores. because of the concerns. you have an aisle and they would not be idle. people want to go through and they want to pay to have someone handle their groceries. i do not know it works with the bottle but it seems that is what the commission is asking for and they keep busy because there are some people who do not want to check out their own stuff, they want someone to do it for them. >> if there is someone who wants to be checked out as opposed to self check out, there's always someone available to do that. there is always someone available to do that. >> what you are asking is you would physically have to take your alcohol to another aisle where there is another person's station. >> whether the person is there

the rest of the time is not entirely relevant. when it comes time to check that out, they have to be present, the have to see the item. they have to run it through the checkout. >> this has to happen through the assisted checkout bags as someone takes out alcohol through the assisted check out, the system blocks down. the server has to come out and check the id. that happens. four of eight checks stance would be -- check stands would be manned. >> not as you are describing. we have for lager, belted stands. >> they are self serve. >> i think the motion is such that you would have to have

someone come over and actually make the actual check out. it would physically run that thing through or watch the person run it through so they're not leaving them to run it through the machine. i hope you can work it into your model but it is an important part of this approval. >> my client says this is a problem. >> i am sure you can work out the logistics. once this is triggered, it is an alcoholic item, the person has to come over and has to assist in the actual check out of that item. >> please do not approach the

commission. >> that is the motion as i see it. if there is any further questions from project sponsor, i will try to answer them. i think i made it pretty clear as to what we want done. when that happens. that is what we saw in the video. the alarm goes off, someone comes, and they then watch the process as this item is checked out. >> if i may. it is not that the person would take it to a different child. it is a store employee would come out and check out the item. is that what you're saying? >> the end result is the same. logistically, if they have to go all away and walk someplace else, if there is a checkout stand there, it seems to make sense that if the person is there, physically doing the checkout or watching the item being checked out, and not

allowing the customer to check it out by themselves, you have reached the same goal. to make them walk around to another aisle. i do not know if that is necessary. >> it does pose a problem and i think the most important thing is, that question is being litigated in the state court. >> that might be. >> i am not going to say but defer to the city attorney. it seems to me the appropriate places for the state courts to rule on that. abc to deliver their rules and regulations. and if at the end of it all, the way that you have identified it, it has to go through a fully personed, not manned, staff, then it will be done that way. right now, that is the center of litigation. >> i think we have been told we

can put this in as a condition, but that would always be subject to state law. all that we do is to take higher jurisdiction and interpret it. it turns out what we have approved is not allowable under state law, then we have no control over that part of it. >> i am not saying that. what i am saying is -- and i will defer to the commissioners -- you could impose something harsher than what the state ends up with in the end. and fresh and easy is stuck with that, without coming back to you for a new ceu. you cannot violate the law. you can be harsher than the law. while this is litigating, it seems to me that is the appropriate place for that to become a state law. >> i do not see the distinction between our motion significantly and what you have presented in and what you have presented in the video when the alarm went